Allahabad High Court
ROHITversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The bail application was denied.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court considered a second bail application filed by Rohit, accused in a case involving alleged dowry demand leading to the death of his wife, charged under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The prosecution evidence had been closed and the accused’s statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC, indicating the trial was at its logical end. The applicant claimed an alibi, long pre‑trial incarceration, and no criminal history, arguing that his fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 was being violated. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offences, the proximity of trial conclusion, and Supreme Court precedent that bail is normally not granted after charge framing. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in X v. State of Rajasthan (2024) and the fact that the trial was near completion, the Court rejected the bail application, directing the trial court to decide the case expeditiously.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted after prosecution evidence is closed and the accused’s statement under Section 313 CrPC has been recorded, i.e., at the near‑conclusion stage of trial for offences under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act.
- Whether the applicant’s alibi, length of pre‑trial detention, and lack of criminal history justify granting bail despite the seriousness of the charges.
- Applicability of the Supreme Court’s ruling in X v. State of Rajasthan (2024) concerning bail after charge framing.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 313
- Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 304B, 498A
Subjects
- bail
- dowry death
- murder
- Section 498A IPC
- Section 304B IPC
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- Section 313 CrPC
- Supreme Court precedent
- trial stage
- alibi
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15213 of 2026
Rohit
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dharmendra Kumar Singh, Karan
Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sl. No. 10 out of 259)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Dharmendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for applicant, Sri
Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed
on record.
3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Session
Trial No. 446 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No.58 of 2023 , under
Sections 498A, 304B IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Gursahaiganj,
District Kannauj, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
4. This is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant. The
first one was rejected by this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No. 47114 of 2023 vide order dated 18.8.2025 and following
order was passed:-
"1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Aushim Luthra, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Lavkush
Kumar Bhatt, learned counsel for the informant, Ms. Ifra Islam, learned
State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case
Crime No.58 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and Section 3/4
D.P. Act, Police Station Kotwali Gursahayganj, District Kannauj with the
BAIL No. 15213 of 2026
2
prayer to enlarge him on bail.
4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized
with the deceased person as per Hindu Rites on 13.05.2021. The applicant
and other family members are stated to have subjected the deceased to
cruelty for demand of Rs.2 lakh and a car as dowry, thereby leading her to
death on 30.01.2023 at about 4:00 p.m.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR is delayed by
about fourteen hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.
The deceased had given birth to a baby about three months before her
death and she was under pressure as she had to take care of the ailing
mother of the applicant as well as the said baby, as such, the said pressure
led her to commit suicide. The cause of death is Ashphyxia as a result of
ante mortem hanging.
6. It is further argued that applicant has strong alibi as on the date of
incident the applicant was in Ahmedabad, Gujarat and certificate of his
presence at the shop given by the owner of the shop-Shehjad Prints is
annexed as Annexure No. 7 to affidavit accompanying the bail
application. It is argued that the trial is at its conclusive end as 11
witnesses have been examined and the applicant has to prepare his
defence. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in
jail since 11.02.2023, as such, he is incarcerated for about two and half
years and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is
released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned State Law
Officer have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that
after the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of accused
has been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 06.08.2025 and the trial
is at its conclusive end, as such, he is not entitled for bail.
8. It is admitted by both the parties that the prosecution evidence has been
closed and the statement of accused has been recorded under Section 313
Cr.P.C.
9. The Supreme Court in case of X vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported
BAIL No. 15213 of 2026
3
in 2024 INSC 909, has held that once the trial has commenced, it should
be allowed to reach to its final conclusion, which may either result in
conviction or acquittal of the accused. The bail should not be normally
granted to the accused after the charge has been framed. It should also not
be granted by looking into the discrepancies here or there in the
deposition.
10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into
consideration the status of trial coupled with the fact that the applicant is
the husband of the deceased person and the deceased died within the
precincts of the house of the applicant and in light of the judgment passed
by Supreme Court in case of X Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (supra), I do
not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.
11. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly,
rejected.
12. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial
court be decided expeditiously in view of the principle as has been laid
down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod
Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another
vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.
13. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts
brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and
the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case
during trial."
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:
5. The fundamental rights of the applicant as enshrined in Article 21 of the
Constitution of India stand violated as he is languishing in jail since
11.2.2023, as such, the period of incarceration is about three years. There is
no likelihood of conclusion of trial in the near future. In case, the applicant is
released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:
6. The perusal of the order dated 18.8.2025 indicates that the statement of
BAIL No. 15213 of 2026
4
the accused person u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was already recorded on 6.8.2025 and
since then, there is nothing on record to suggest that applicant cooperated
in trial and what transpired is that the trial has not concluded during the
intervening period of about nine months.
CONCLUSION:
7. The callous approach in taking up the trial of an under trial accused
person stands deprecated.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration
the fact that the trial is almost at its logical end and the witnesses have
deposed against the applicant, as such, I do not find it a fit case for grant of
bail to the applicant. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is,
accordingly, rejected.
9. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial
court be decided expeditiously as early as possible, if there is no legal
impediment.
10. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts
brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the
said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 6, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…